The Case for 30FPS.... (PC)

[AVMC]

One term for everyone... Motion-blur. It's way heavily used in games anymore, not just for effect, but to keep people from noticing that they can't keep a steady FPS. I'm not claiming to know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the people who don't notice a difference between 60 and 30 more often play with motion blur on. Again, not saying I believe this to be true, just wouldn't be surprised.

And frankly, smoothness has a lot more to do with how frames are presented, the animations being used [temporal aliasing], and how evenly the frames are processed. GC routines can seriously frak your smoothness, from random frametime spikes, while still averaging a set FPS.

If you're used to 60+ or even 120+, it's extremely jarring to see a cinematic in which you literally watch things jump from parts of the screen to the next, even if it's only a little. But slap a little motion blur on, shader blur and bloom the hell out of scenes and it's much more tolerable for some.

Not me, but I totally get why people say they don't notice differences if it's not something they generally tinker with for hours [i do] to get "perfect" settings.

 

[powerbuoy]

Yep, I also gave up on 60 (couldn't get it stable and had to lower settings a LOT (GTX680)) and locked it to thirty. Settings between high and ultra and a stable 30 is way better imo. I'm playing with a controller anyway so don't really notice it.

 

[Selea]

Dude what:hmm:
Never heard anyone to say 60fps looks more fake, eyes can sense about 250fps so I'd imagine its more realistic the closer we get this.

Where the hell did you read that humans can register 250fps with the eyes? Did you exchange humaking for flies? There have been many studies done on the matter and for what I know none of them has proven that the human eye can register differences above 60 fps (if the rendition if smooth, i.e. with no frame spikes).

Your number of 250fps is insane. If that was the case you would be practically able to see individual frames in a 30 fps video, a thing you obviously can't.

 

[Zaeccis]

@Selea

Ok maybe my choice of words was little bit poor.

250fps is from USA army tests done with fighter pilots, they could notice a plane on screen when it was shown for 1/250 secs (basically they showed 249 blank screens and one with a plane).

And yes, I know this varies from person to person.

Telling difference between A fps and B fps is totally different thing, I can tell difference between 120fps and 60fps and blind tests with professional gamers (sorry cant find link) showed that almost all of them could too.
I haven't watched screen above 120fps so can't say anything about that and haven't seen any articles either.


On the other hand I have friends who play with consoles and couldn't tell difference between 60fps and 120fps

Oh, and we can clearly see individual frames at 30fps, it's just that our brains that 'blend' those frames together so it seems like continuous motion. If one of those frames was blank red for exmaple, you would easily notice it.

 

[rcjonessnp175]

Have 980 sli this game is not a smooth 60 fpS game at all. Have it locked at 30 maxed out and at dsr 4k. Better experience.

 

[CannedPlayer]

@Selea

Ok maybe my choice of words was little bit poor.

250fps is from USA army tests done with fighter pilots, they could notice a plane on screen when it was shown for 1/250 secs (basically they showed 249 blank screens and one with a plane).

This famous test was done on one condition to check a specific result. It was a test, not a full statement that eyes can differ. Results vary and the test was very specific.

The problem is that you got it wrong. When people spread things like this, they tend to think that the same applies for everybody under all circumstances, and also they are totally unaware of what the test was aiming to prove, the conditions, the methods, and what the result was good for.

So they made a test with blank screens and SOME results checked... So now is it the definitive proof that we see things at 250 fps?

1st it was known that we reached 30.. now they are trying to prove we can reach 60. From what´s shown on screen, alterations from 55-60 are barely noticeable, except for placebo cases where people swear they saw something, but mostly was their brain and memory fooling them.

That reminds me of a test we did when we were kids..... softly hold a pen by the middle , swing it counter and clockwise just a little bit while you move your hand up and down at a medium speed... you´ll see the pen bending. That´s just the fps thing acting. The brain making an ilusion because it cant get all the frames, or else you would never see the bending.

So hold on your big parade, and get back to the world of "eyes watching things in a 50-58 range" (depending on the subject... humans are different even when it comes to the intensity of the colors perceived by the eyes)

However if you think you can reach 250, please to a favor for humanity. Call NASA and let them study you for the good of all mankind.

 

[Black_Iris]

Oh, and we can clearly see individual frames at 30fps, it's just that our brains that 'blend' those frames together so it seems like continuous motion. If one of those frames was blank red for exmaple, you would easily notice it.

No, I'm sorry, you wouldn't. That's all why they banned (explicitly) the insertion of single frames in movies, media etc. because your conscious mind cannot recognize them but your subconscious does, and with bypassing the conscious filters you can literally influence the choices of people by and by. Many of the first insertions, btw, where exactly white writings in a red background (because red is very conducive as "urgent" to the subconscious).

So no, I don't know from where you get your information but you are clearly wrong. Hell, you cannot recognize a single frame either in a simple java animation at less than 30fps (look for example at the Dragon Age Inquisition Java game where you could take weapons by finding out them inside the frames; without the visual cues to tell you when the insertion was made and a slow-mo applet you could never find them, there's no way).

 

[spacehamsterZH]

#1 reason for me to play on PC is framerate. I'll gladly turn down graphics settings until I get a reasonably stable 60fps, and speaking as someone who also plays on console and has a PS4, I'm impossibly disappointed that apparently 30fps is still considered acceptable in this console generation. Bloodborne gave me a headache.

 

[Zaeccis]

@CannedPlayer

Sorry but did you even read rest of my post before replying?
I specifically said there that test doesn't mean anything regarding fps counts we can tell from one another.

When people spread things like this, they tend to think that the same applies for everybody under all circumstances

I mentioned it varies between persons (which you convienently left out from quote...)

Ok I'll try to clear this up for you and others.

What was shown in the test is that humans eyes are able to notice things that last only 1/250 of a second.

So now is it the definitive proof that we see things at 250 fps?

No, you can't use term of frames when speaking of seeing, light doesn't come into our eyes in any bursts, it's continuous flow.
(as I said I chose my words poorly in first post, I'm not native english speaker as you probably have noticed)
We dont see in any fps, we can only talk about how quickly can something happen for us to be able to still notice it

And that test is proof (at least for those specific people) that we are able to notice things that last for 1/250 sec, or in other words amount of time one frame is being shown in 250fps film (or game or whatever)
So if you they had game running 250fps and one screen per second would be completely different from others (blank color or something like that) they would notice it.

1st it was known that we reached 30.. now they are trying to prove we can reach 60

okay maybe its just me but this is bit unclear, do you mean it is proved that we can sense things lasting for 1/30 or do you mean that we can tell difference between 30fps and 60fps or what?

Most of people can definitely tell difference between 30fps and 60fps and some (me included) between 60fps and 120fps. And it isn't placebo effect, Once after updating a game I noticed something was wrong and it seemed laggy, update had actually capped it to 60fps, so I noticed change without knowing it having happened.

Telling difference between 60 and 55 fps is again different, very rarely can people do that, to me they would seem equally lagging. I think most people would have toruble telling difference between 12fps and 11fps even though they can see huge laggines.

eyes watching things in a 50-58 range

If, again, yo mean by this that eyes can only notice things that last 1/60 of a second or longer, that is false. Almost everyone with normal eyesight can notice things that last lot shorter.

 

[gtcarlson]

I never really look at my FPS, no idea what I'm getting in Witcher 3. I just crank settings to max in games and if I am displeased with the fluidity I turn down settings, or in the case I'm playing 3D vision I'll check that I'm above 30 if I'm getting eye fatigue.

 

[Der-Kleine]

I wouldn't really call 30 fps acceptable, however at the same time I don't think 60 fps is entirely necessary. I find that in the Witcher 3, as long as the framerate is above about 40 fps it looks smooth enough and hitching isn't an issue, so I'm perfectly fine with a varying framerate. Luckily my GTX 760 + FX 6300 usually run the game at somewhere between ~38 and 60 fps, with only the swamps in velen really dropping into the low thirties. (I am running the game on high settings with only the shadow quality and vegetation draw distance turned down to medium, it loos pretty great that way).

When the game does drop into the low thirties though, it kind of hurts to look at it, and that's why I'd say 30 fps isn't accpetable. And no, I don't have a G-sync monitor, but variable framerates still look fine to me as long as the framerate is (as mentioned earlier) above about 40 and v-sync is on or the game handles screen tearing well. (I've forced v-sync through the Nvidia control pannel since apparently that's better than the in-game variant).

I think one other thing that helps with lower framerates is to play with a controller: Controllers allow for smoother, less-sudden cammera movement, and when you aren't turning the camera particularly fast lower framerates aren't as noticeable, as long as we're not talking about super low framerates.

 

[Zaeccis]

No, I'm sorry, you wouldn't.

You cant be serious. Are you saying to me that 30fps animation where one frame is red you can't see that frame?
Well, just for you I spent 10 minutes making an animation to prove this.

Here you go, gif: 29 white frames, 1 red frame, they play once in a second. Now tell me can you see red flash once every second because I sure can.

---------- Updated at 05:11 PM ----------

Okay I made 60fps test, same thing, 59 white frames and 1 red frame, playing 60fps.

I would do 250fps test but no one has screen that can play it
I have 120fps screen and can confirm I can easily see it still. in 120fps test

 

[Black_Iris]

You cant be serious. Are you saying to me that 30fps animation where one frame is red you can't see that frame?
Well, just for you I spent 10 minutes making an animation to prove this.

Your "animation" proves nothing. It's obvious that if you jut put all frames white and one red in a box you will notice a little red flash (you would be able to notice a flash even in an high frame count because there's too much difference between the former images and the inserted frame and you are even actively forced to look at it given that there's nothing else to look at). Do that in a movie in a scene where the color red is diffused and where your attention is taken by the story, however, and you will not notice it.

Do you really want to let pass that you don't know that putting single frames in media is banned since it can influence people because your conscious mind cannot filter the thing and that there have been a lot of studies and cases on the matter? Seriously? Here, take a look:
http://www.psychologistworld.com/influence_personality/subliminalads.php
http://subliminalmanipulation.blogspot.it/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instances_of_subliminal_messages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli
http://www.d.umn.edu/~rvaidyan/mktg4731/subliminal.pdf

It has been scientifically proven, btw, so I cannot get how you can insist that you are right on this thing. It can be done with audio, video, inserting a single frame in a set, inserting an image that merges with the background etc. etc. In all this cases your conscious mind will NOT register the message and this is why it is so dangerous when used in a bad way. Marketing started doing it in the past and it was banned for this reason.

 

[Zaeccis]

@Black_Iris

Your "animation" proves nothing.

Lets recap our conversation, shall we

I said:

If one of those frames was blank red for exmaple, you would easily notice it.

You said:

No, I'm sorry, you wouldn't.

I think it without doubt proves your argument to be false.

After that you started about single frame ban (and yes, I'm well aware of it) and it just proves my point: human eyes can register things that last less than 1/30 or 1/60 of a second (or one frame in 30fps/60fps)

And it doesn't matter if it's consciousness or subconsciousness that registers it. Actually it's both, your conscious side can tell there is something weird going on if one frame is out of place but your subconsciousness registers what you saw. The point is your brain registers it.

So what exactly are you trying to say here?
(other than claiming that you can't see red frame in 30fps/60fps video, which you admitted to be false in your second post)

 

[Black_Iris]

I think it without doubt proves your argument to be false.

OMG. It seems I'm talking with a wall.

No, it doesn't because you are creating a "test" that simulates conditions that are completely bogus. You can insist also that gravity doesn't exist by using an helium balloon as a methodology to "disprove" it. You created an animation with only white frames in which you inserted a red one, a completely bogus "test" to discern the validity of my assertions, for the motives I've explained.

If you sincerely cannot understand, either on your own, why your "test" is completely bogus then I fear that we have nothing to debate here.

After that you started about single frame ban (and yes, I'm well aware of it) and it just proves my point: human eyes can register things that last less than 1/30 or 1/60 of a second (or one frame in 30fps/60fps)

When you talk about "eye" in the context of your quote you obviously refer to the conscious acknowledging of those frames. So no, it proves exactly the contrary of what you were saying. Now you are playing on semantics to try to have a point, just because it is true that the eye recognize those frames, but the fact is that your consciousness doesn't and soi n your concept of before the fact that the eye recognizes the frames changes nothing at all. You still don't consciously acknowledge those difference on frames more so it is exactly the same as if your eye didn't register them to begin with (and this if where all the fact that you can be subliminally influenced arise from).

And it doesn't matter if it's consciousness or subconsciousness that registers it. Actually it's both, your conscious side can tell there is something weird going on if one frame is out of place but your subconsciousness registers what you saw. The point is your brain registers it.

It makes A LOT of difference if you consciously acknowledge it or not for your concept. If you don't consciously acknowledge the difference, in fact, you understand no difference whatsoever, it's obvious. How can you see something that doesn't exist? Your brain registers it (one of the side of the brain does, not the central cortex) but it is not processed by your conscious activity so it is like it doesn't exist at all (it is like receiving informations while asleep). You simply don't see any difference whatsoever. Your brain can register them but if you don't acknowledge any difference, consciously, what the hell does it change practically for your vision? Nothing at all. You simply don't see it. Even optical illusions are registered by your brain correctly and yet what you see is a distorted vision of the reality. That's because what the brain registers and what the brain actually processes (and so becomes what you see) are two different things.

So what exactly are you trying to say here?

That all you have said till now is completely wrong, as I said from beginning.

 

[Zaeccis]

I have to assume you read my post as you quoted it, otherwise it seems you didn't really understand it.

My red/white gif was made to prove you that humans can easily see one red frame in 60fps film which you said to be false. Do you understand? You said it is impossible to see one red frame (just look quotes in previous post) which I proved false.

Test has nothing to do with those hidden frames, hopefully you don't think I'm trying to simulate that here.

And next

ust because it is true that the eye recognize those frames, but the fact is that the brain doesn't

then:

Your brain registers it but it is not processed by your conscious activity

So, have you already decided if your brain register that or not?

You are saying everything I have said is false.
-My point is human eyes (and brains) can both consciously and subconsciously register things that last less than 1/30 of a second

You say that is false?
(I could note here that whole thing about hidden frames proves that)

I'm trying to politely explain this but ignoring my posts and points that are well argumented and making arguments that make absolutely no sense might soon be too much *sensing @Sardukhar 's ponies incoming*

EDIT: others who read this, please tell what you think, politely and with good arguments.

 

[Black_Iris]

My red/white gif was made to prove you that humans can easily see one red frame in 60fps film which you said to be false. Do you understand?

In fact it is false as all those links I've given you (one of them being a scientific peer review study) proves. You just made a "test" that has bogus parameters of start, as in the example of trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist with a "test" with an helium balloon.

You said it is impossible to see one red frame (just look quotes in previous post) which I proved false.

Again, you didn't prove anything at all, because your methodology was flawed for the reasons I've explained. Tests have to be made with correct methodologies to be understood as valid. Again, refer to the example of the balloon of Helium to "test" gravity. You cannot simply insist: "see, I made a test that disproves gravity, look at this balloon that actually goes above instead of falling, it is proof that gravity is a lie". I explained to you why your "test" is a bogus one, but you still insist you have proven something. What can I do about it? Continue to insist it if you want to.

Test has nothing to do with those hidden frames, hopefully you don't think I'm trying to simulate that here.

Your "test" would much probably fail even at 500 fps (you would still see a small red flash even in this case) and surely at something like 250. Would you really insist that you can consciously discern single frames in 500/250 fps also?

So, have you already decided if your brain register that or not?

I corrected that part later just because I knew you would have elsewhere made this remark since you are obviously trying to attach to the minimal chance of playing semantic tricks to have some ground in this discussion. Registering and processing are two separate things. Refer to the example of the optical illusions. But I guess you believe that since your brain registers those optical illusions correctly what you see is not an illusion even when what you see is not the real image, isn't it?

-My point is human eyes (and brains) can both consciously and subconsciously register things that last less than 1/30 of a second

And I repeat to you that they cannot (then eyes cannot register nothing, they only pass information, that's it), as subliminal messages prove much too well. Did you read those articles I sent you? At this point you are really denying evidence. There are PEER REVIEWED STUDIES proving that subliminal messages put as low as 23-25fps per second cannot be consciously processed, and yet you still continue to say it's not true just because of your "test" that proves nothing at all. I guess that you are one of those individuals that think that physics, mathematics, biology and similar are all opinions.

You say that is false?
(I could note here that whole thing about hidden frames proves that.

No, it doesn't, in the same way as an helium balloon doesn't disprove the law of gravity. The only thing your "test" proves is that you clearly don't understand the parameters involved in this process.

 

[Zaeccis]

okay, after 2 posts you still haven't understood what was point of that red/white gif.

I try to explain this as simply as I can:
forget those subliminal messages for now, they are true and I have said that I know they are true.

Those gifs were a respond to your comment where you stated that you can't see one red frame in 60fps/30fps material.

Let me emphasize: you said that it is impossible to see on red frame in 60fps/30fps video.now: can you see that red flash?

yes you can, good work!

Now, you have seen one individual frame in 60fps material. frame is visible about 0.016 seconds

Lets recap: this is not meant to claim you could consciously notice those hidden frames used for advertising, this is just to prove your one claim false.

Now, read this carefully trough, check that your comment where you said one red frame is impossible to notice.

Have you understood now what I mean, if so I can go to other points, if not I don't know what to do

 

[Khronikos]

Look 30FPS does suck. I totally agree with you guys. But one 970 on my overclocked system is not doing it the way I want to. I'm pretty torn at this point. The motion blur in this game is not very good and doesn't really hide all the nasty judder at 30FPS inherent to that framerate. 60 FPS looks glorious obviously but I have to turn basically all the important stuff down to high, which is infuriating to me as I cannot stand pop-in and lesser world detail.

The game is great but part of me wants to wait until maybe they can improve performance. I have a feeling I might just go with a locked 30 and everything on Ultra though.

For those that need a really good comparison here ya go: http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-text

30FPS is garbage but what can you do. I asked them to improve motion blur in the feedback thread because it looks like a really mediocre version to me in this game.

If the variable framerate was okay and didn't have a load of stutters I would say hey why not? But that isn't the case. Variable framerates have hitching that I simply cannot stand in games like this because they clearly have not optimized well for variable framerates.

 

[Sardukhar]

Hmm.

HMMMM.

Ponies Nearly Necessary!

Which would undo all your posting efforts. Here's a hint: don't refer to other posters as "walls" in terms of their reasoning capacity. It's not very nice.

If you don't think the debate is worht continuing DO NOT CONTINUE.

If you insist that something is proven, provide the proof. I did actually glance at one of the links re: the law and subliminals and what I read indicated that allegations and lawsuits aside, it's not necessarily illegal at all. Except in the UK. So if you make a statement that it's fact, back it up.

Or, you know, don't. But don't lose your temper when other people don't take you seriously enough.

Perhaps a nice half day break from the topic would prove salubrious?